3,-objected against, above, pp. 56-8.-You defend yourself at pp. 48-9,-and "cannot doubt that the Revisers were perfectly justified" in doing "as Tischendorf and Tregelles had done before them,"-viz. _inventing_ a new Gospel incident.

(6) _The mess you have made_ of S. Mark xi. 8,-exposed by the Quarterly Reviewer, above, pp. 58-61,-you defend at pp. 49-52. You have "preferred to read with Tischendorf and Tregelles." About,

(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,-and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,-I shall have a few serious words to say immediately. About,

(9) the 20 _certainly genuine_ words you have omitted from S. Luke ix. 55, 56,-I promise to give you at no distant date an elaborate lecture. "Are we to understand" (you ask) "that the Reviewer honestly believes the added words to have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?" ("The _omitted_ words," you mean.) To be sure you are!-I answer.

(10) _The amazing blunder_ endorsed by the Revisers in S. Luke x. 15; which I have exposed above, at pp. 54-6.-You defend the blunder (as usual) at pp. 55-6, remarking that the Revisers, "_with Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _and Tregelles_, adopt the interrogative form." (This seems to be a part of your style.)

(11) _The depraved exhibition of the _LORD'S_ Prayer_ (S. Luke xi. 2-4) which I have commented on above, at pp. 34-6,-you applaud (as usual) at pp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, "with Tischendorf and Tregelles."

(12) _The omission_ of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. 38, I have commented on, above, at pp. 85-8.-You defend the omission, and "the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles," at pp. 58-9.

(13) _The gross fabrication_ in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have exposed, above, at pp. 61-5.-You defend it, at pp. 59-61.

(14) _A plain omission_ in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at pp. 72-3.-You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet.

(15) "_t.i.tus Justus_," thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. 53-4.-You stand up for the interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly,

(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (_supra_ pp. 98-106),-you contend against from p. 64 to p. 76.-The true reading of this important place, (which is not _your_ reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. 424 to p. 501.

I have already stated why I dismiss _thirteen_ out of your sixteen instances in this summary manner. The remaining _three_ I have reserved for further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain.

[18] Bp. Ellicott's claim that the Revisers were guided by "the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,"-disproved by an appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The self-same claim,-(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,)-vindicated, on the contrary, for the "Quarterly Reviewer."

You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point at which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge,-is, that _I_ insist on making my appeal to the "_Textus Receptus_;" _you_, to _Ancient Authority_. But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. _You_ shall first be heard: and you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Revising body, as follows:

"It was impossible to mistake the conviction upon which its Textual decisions were based.

"It was a conviction that (1) THE TRUE TEXT WAS NOT TO BE SOUGHT IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS; or (2) In the bulk of the Cursive Ma.n.u.scripts; or (3) In the Uncials (with or without the support of the _Codex Alexandrinus_;) or (4) In the Fathers who lived after Chrysostom; or (5) In Chrysostom himself and his contemporaries; BUT (6) IN THE CONSENTIENT TESTIMONY OF THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES."-(p. 28.)

In such terms you venture to contrast our respective methods. You want the public to believe that I make the "Textus Receptus" "_a standard from which there shall be no appeal_,"-entertain "the notion that it is _little else than sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last 300 years_,"(916)-and so forth;-while _you_ and your colleagues act upon the conviction that the Truth is rather to be sought "_in the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_." I proceed to show you, by appealing to an actual instance, that neither of these statements is correct.

(_a_) And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding that you challenge the Received reading of S. LUKE ii. 14, ("_good will towards men_");-and that, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [? A B D], all _Latin_ doc.u.ments, and the Gothic Version,) you contend that "_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_" ought to be read, instead;-I make my appeal unreservedly to ANTIQUITY.(917) I request the _Ancients_ to adjudicate between you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I find as follows:

That, in the IInd century,-the Syriac Versions and Irenaeus _support the Received Text_:

That, in the IIIrd century,-the Coptic Version,-Origen in 3 places, and-the Apostolical Const.i.tutions in 2, do the same:

That, in the IVth century, (_to which century_, you are invited to remember, _codices_ B _and_ ? _belong_,)-Eusebius,-Aphraates the Persian,-t.i.tus of Bostra,-each in 2 places:-Didymus in 3:-Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus,-Cyril of Jer.,-Epiphanius 2-and Gregory of Nyssa-4 times: Ephraem Syr.,-Philo bp. of Carpasus,-Chrysostom 9 times,-and an unknown Antiochian contemporary of his:-these eleven, I once more find, are _every one against you_:

That, in the Vth century,-besides the Armenian Version, Cyril of Alex. in 14 places:-Theodoret in 4:-Theodotus of Ancyra in 5:-Proclus:-Paulus of Emesa:-the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431;-and Basil of Seleucia:-_these contemporaries of cod._ A I find are _all eight against you_:

That, in the VIth century,-besides the Georgian-and aethiopic Versions,-Cosmas, 5 times:-Anastasius Sinait. and Eulogius, (_contemporaries of cod._ D,) are _all three with the Traditional Text_:

That, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries,-Andreas of Crete, 2:-pope Martinus at the Lat. Council:-Cosmas, bp. of Maiume near Gaza,-and his pupil John Damascene;-together with Germa.n.u.s, abp. of Constantinople:-are again _all five with the Traditional Text_.

To these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities with which the reader has been already made acquainted (viz. at pp. 44-5): all of which bear the self-same evidence.

Thus I have enumerated _fifty-three_ ancient Greek authorities,-of which _sixteen_ belong to the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth centuries: and _thirty-seven_ to the Vth, VIth, VIIth, and VIIIth.

And now, which of us two is found to have made the fairer and the fuller appeal to "the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities:"

_you_ or _I_?... This first.

And next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some of the most famous personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: are dotted over every region of ancient Christendom: in many instances are _far more ancient than codices_ B _and_ ?:-with what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence concerning S. Luke ii. 14 "_clearly preponderates_" in favour of the reading which you and your friends prefer?

I claim at all events to have demonstrated that _both_ your statements are unfounded: viz. (1) That _I_ seek for the truth of Scripture in the "Textus Receptus:" and (2) That _you_ seek it in "the consentient testimony of the _most ancient authorities_."-(Why not frankly avow that you believe the Truth of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in "_the consentient testimony of codices_ ? _and_ B"?)

(_b_) Similarly, concerning THE LAST 12 VERSES OF S. MARK, which you brand with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token that, in your opinion, there is "a breach of continuity" (p. 53), (whatever _that_ may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. _Your_ ground for thus disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and ? omit them:-that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them:-and that Eusebius says they were often away. Now, _my_ method on the contrary is to refer all such questions to "_the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_." And I invite you to note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The Verses in question I find are recognized,

In the IInd century,-By the Old Latin-and Syriac Verss.:-by Papias;-Justin M.;-Irenaeus;-Tertullian.

In the IIIrd century,-By the Coptic-and the Sahidic Versions:-by Hippolytus;-by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage;-by the "Acta Pilati;"-and by the "Apostolical Const.i.tutions" in two places.

In the IVth century,-By Cureton's Syr. and the Gothic Verss.:-besides the Syriac Table of Canons;-Eusebius;-Macarius Magnes;-Aphraates;-Didymus;-the Syriac "Acts of the Ap.;"-Epiphanius;-Leontius;-ps.-Ephraem;-Ambrose;-Chrysostom;-Jerome;-Augustine.

In the Vth century,-Besides the Armenian Vers.,-by codices A and C;-by Leo;-Nestorius;-Cyril of Alexandria;-Victor of Antioch;-Patricius;-Marius Mercator.

In the VIth and VIIth centuries,-Besides cod. D,-the Georgian and aethiopic Verss.:-by Hesychius;-Gregentius;-Prosper;-John, abp. of Thessalonica;-and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.... (See above, pages 36-40.)

And now, once more, my lord Bishop,-Pray which of us is it,-_you_ or _I_,-who seeks for the truth of Scripture "in _the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_"? On _my_ side there have been adduced in evidence _six_ witnesses of the IInd century:-_six_ of the IIIrd:-_fifteen_ of the IVth:-_nine_ of the Vth:-_eight_ of the VIth and VIIth,-(44 in all): while _you_ are found to rely on codices B and ? (as before), supported by a single _obiter dictum_ of Eusebius. I have said nothing as yet about _the whole body of the Copies_: nothing about _universal, immemorial, Liturgical use_. Do you seriously imagine that the testimony on your side is "decidedly preponderating"? Above all, will you venture again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you have done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I recognize neither myself nor you.

Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to be the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and your friends have committed. "The textual facts," (say you, speaking of the last 12 Verses,)-"have been placed before the reader, because Truth itself demanded it." This (with Canon Cook(918)) I entirely deny. It is because "the textual facts have" NOT "been placed before the reader," that I am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided statement,-a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the facts,-facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention.

But, I forbear to state so much as _one_ of them. The evidence has already filled a volume.(919) Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note, "the textual facts _have been_ [fully and fairly] _placed before the reader_"-what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing the last 12 Verses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no part of the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. I have proved to you that it is _I_-not _you_-who rest my case on an appeal to CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY: and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to establish.

I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous place in S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy,-on which you have challenged me to a trial of strength.

[19] "G.o.d was manifested in the flesh" Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.

_A Dissertation._

In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim.

iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages to this subject.(920) You reply in twelve.(921) That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably _this_:-That whereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since Tyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the place thus:-(I set the words down in plain English, because the issue admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in Greek: and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read the present DISSERTATION shall understand it also:)-Whereas, I say, we have hitherto read the place thus,

"GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF G.o.dLINESS:-G.o.d WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY:"

_You_ insist that this is a "_plain and clear error_." You contend that there is "_decidedly preponderating evidence_" for reading instead,